TooManyShots wrote in post #18301710That's interesting but I think some talents are required. That's the essence that allows you reflect on yourself and your works and your own motivations. That's the essence that forces you to push yourself to become better than your last works. Come on, we all know there are people who just won't become better photographers even if they have 2 decades to devote in the art. Hehehehehe... What is considered a better photographer? I mean....there is no break thru in their artistic development. Works they produced few years ago are the same as they are producing now. If the works were bad back then, they are bad now also.

Yes there are a lot of people that really are not creative and do not know how to nurture creativity but it can be nurtured and I personally know examples of that. But one problem is so many really have nothing to say and if they do they are either using the wrong medium or just haven't figured out how to say it. They can't push passed the obvious. Many are just happy if they can get things in focus and half way exposed properly. Those are usually the people that are just interested in taking photographs of their families. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that and most will never be the visionary that Sally Mann is and was when she photographed her family or Abelardo Morell and the family work that he did.

I think when one is really starting to arive is when people look at their work and they know it is theirs before they see the signature or who made the image. That usually comes from some kind of conscious effort on the photographers part. In first seeing trends in the way he/she sees naturally. The way he/she composes. The way they process and that all becomes a personal way of seeing. That is not easy. Most never get to this point. And this might not be important in maybe another thread but here we are talking art. I think in almost all art we always see a little of the creator. Roy DeCarava one said "You should be able to look at me and see my work. You should be able to look at my work and see me".

All of those things can be nurtured in the right environments. The problem sometimes becomes over time, and I see it a lot in forum land, is there is some horizontal visual growth but not a lot of vertical growth or even a lot of encouragement in that direction.

The book I mentioned earlier in this thread by Betty Edwards is a great place to start better understanding the creative process.

Something that can maybe be a bit "under-played" is the post-processing work that can be done, whether in the darkroom (by greats such as Ansel Adams, or in the "digital darkroom", work that has greatly expanded in the days of Photoshop and in our Raw workflow capabilities!

Now, I bring this up, because, well, it goes beyong what we photographers go for first-hand, as to composition of a "scene", where we use some creativity as to adjusting our perspective and in the process, we tweak that composition to bring out our "vision" of a subject/scene, and our hope is to capture an image that does in fact communicate that "vision". In fact, oftentimes it does in fact do that! That is our hope!

But the whole field of post-processing images, well, it can trulty bring creativity/ "Art" to the forefront!

I'm bringing this up, although I myself am not any kind of "expert as to creativity in processing images. I've certainly played a bit with Photoshop, and I've definitely delved into the whole field of Raw processing in order to enhance my images. Also, I n ever did darkroom work with my film photography, and then, we have the work of Adams and countless others showing us what could be accomplished in the darkroom!

And then, as we have all seen, the realm of digital photography together with the capabilities we find in Photoshop and other apps puts a whole new meaning to the concept of the "digital darkroom" and further, a whole revolution when it comes to "Art" as it can apply in our photography!

One thing that does come to mind is that there are people who I have seen as "good photographers", ones who do manage to "capture" things in very pleasing ways, and then, ones who have taken it a step beyond and who have gone on to "transform" those captures/images in ways that, dang, can seem to be "pure Art"!

I'm just babbling here, hey, sometimes "babbling" is my one approach to maybe being "creative"1 Heck, people have repeatedly told me "Tony, you should write books!"!

In fairness to all, it is increasingly difficult to establish a signature look with photography for the simple fact that millions of photos are created almost every second of the day across the world. The same cannot be said of books, paintings, songs, and other artistic mediums. What other form of expression can produce a masterpiece in 1/500th a second?

Still, original photographers manage to not only crop up but also do so without relying on gimmickry or excessive pretense. But it ain’t easy these days.

The point being that trying to force originality in photography will present a rough road, whereby it’s generally better to concentrate on what you the photographer likes, what motivates you…and this is an ever evolving process.

There are photos that I post on my site that just a week or so after, I’m asking, “what the hell did I see in that.” I keep them up their as a reminder.

But in regards to creativity being nurtured or inherited, yes, creativity often reaches its pinnacle through practice and introspection. But as individuals, we are blessed or cursed, depending on how it all works out, with different congenital abilities.

Still, the differences usually manifest in degrees, so that most folks can, with practice, improve from his or her base point.

And even if it is derivative, which most photography is, it will still be you.

Something that can maybe be a bit "under-played" is the post-processing work that can be done, whether in the darkroom (by greats such as Ansel Adams, or in the "digital darkroom", work that has greatly expanded in the days of Photoshop and in our Raw workflow capabilities...

When I first got into photography, one of the magazines that I frequently read was Black & White Photography (UK), which had a featured section that, using the same negative, compared a print made from the original photographer and one made from a talented printer. This eventually included “digital negatives.”

The negative was the same, but the difference between the prints could be dramatic, not just in tonality and contrast, but also in cropping, reflecting how much creative interpretation is involved in post processing.

I’ve seen Adam’s “Moonrise, Hernandez” straight print, before any notable post processing, and it’s a whole other beast. And of course, even Adam’s final prints of the same negative varied over the years.

So yes, in many cases, it is possible that the majority of creativity that goes into a photo occurs in post processing.

Post is all part of the process just like the darkroom was in those times. The first part is capturing the image with post being every bit as important. It's all part of process and it when it all comes together it can, along with subject matter and the way someone composes, become part of a personal style. " ......so called “composition” becomes a personal thing, to be developed along with technique, as a personal way of seeing." - Edward Weston

Which is why great photographers aren't great because of one photo. They are great because of the entire body of their work - something that will always be an expression of self and reflect the period in which they worked. That doesn't necessarily require a recognisable 'style' but is more a commitment to their practice and how they see over an extended period.

Spacemunkie wrote in post #18302143Which is why great photographers aren't great because of one photo. They are great because of the entire body of their work - something that will always be an expression of self and reflect the period in which they worked. That doesn't necessarily require a recognisable 'style' but is more a commitment to their practice and how they see over an extended period.

Agree......A great at bat doesn't make a hall of fame baseball player just as one great photo doesn't make a great photographer.

I thought the article at the link below was pretty interesting, on photographers not quite getting modern art. Gursky makes an appearance. Here is a very short excerpt and the link.

"While Modernism still rules in the world of professional and enthusiast photography, it has largely been abandoned by artists working with photography as a medium. Instead of unique compositions and magic hour light, art photographers often adopt a uniform, objective perspective for all of their compositions. The straightforward shot of a banal subject in ordinary light is a common motif within art photography."

That seems to be a good and informative article, but honestly, it is difficult reading. I couldn't maintain the focus and concentration necessary to follow along with all the points that the author was trying to make.

Trying to read it, it was almost as if I would read one statement, and then have to force my mind to "hold onto" that statement and remember it while I read the next statement......because the statements seem to build upon one another. My brain is simply not able to do all of that - it's like algebra or something - just too complex to follow along with for more than a sentence or two at a time.

In other words, the writer lost me after one or two paragraphs. But whatever he was saying was probably pretty insightful. I guess.

.

"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one."They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one."Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

patrick j wrote in post #18303000I thought the article at the link below was pretty interesting, on photographers not quite getting modern art. Gursky makes an appearance. Here is a very short excerpt and the link.

"While Modernism still rules in the world of professional and enthusiast photography, it has largely been abandoned by artists working with photography as a medium. Instead of unique compositions and magic hour light, art photographers often adopt a uniform, objective perspective for all of their compositions. The straightforward shot of a banal subject in ordinary light is a common motif within art photography."

The article actually posits some interesting explanations on why such divergence exists within the photographic community over the value of art (never mind the definition, which is a universal point of contention).

As seen in this very thread, “art” cannot be mentioned without spurring disparaging commentary, and the fact of the matter is that much of this criticism is absolutely accurate—-much of the art world is heaped in pretentiousness, charade, social politics, hyper inflated value, swindling marketing, and so on…the emperor runs around in the buff without hesitation, so to speak.

The problem is that art is much bigger than this.

Moreover, to cynically dismiss art overall belies the artistic components that underpin most great photography; even in straightforward photojournalism.

One thing that becomes a limiting preoccupation is the “I don’t get it.” Well, not all aspects of art are meant to get, and the attempt to get it can actually be detrimentally confining.

Now, if one’s taste doesn’t comport with what they see, that’s another thing, but this alone should not automatically disqualify from what others might legitimately gain.

The Gursky photos are a great example of what breeds such division. Now, should a Gursky photo be the most expensive photo in the world is debatable, just as it would be for absolutely any other photograph by anyone else.

But is it just all in the name; just a marketing scam?

One of my photography compilation books included two photos by Gursky. I immediately was drawn to both. I did not know who took the photos, and after finding out that someone named Gursky was involved, I actually forgot this until he popped up in the news.

And in fact, as I jumped into photography as a serious hobby, I typically discovered photographers through their photographs first, not the other way around. Appreciation was based on the product, not the marketing. So accusations of being duped or enamored with name-only never applied.

Now, did marketing and propitious networking help get Gursky enough recognition to then be included in the photo book in the first place? Probably, but then again, most hardworking Americans have jobs because of networking and some luck.

This, however, doesn’t mean that these hardworking Americans didn’t deserve the jobs they attained. Realistically, inherent value often requires some external support, and this process is not always fair. Three hundred people apply for one job. Only one gets the job; it doesn’t mean that the remaining 299 folks weren’t as qualified or maybe even more qualified.

Undoubtedly, some, or perhaps, many things rise to the top that shouldn’t. But it doesn’t mean that everything that becomes popular or carries a heavy price tag is a sham…perhaps overpriced, but not a sham.

But yes, at some point, the “name” does carry its own value…that’s just part of investment and collectability. Never mind an original print from Ansel Adams, a camera used by him is going to carry a generous premium. Hell, a chair that he used to own might attract a few more dollars.

Never mind anything actually used by baseball great Mickey Mantle, a mass produced cardboard picture of him by Topps from 1952 can bring in between US$10,000 to US$300,000 depending on condition. Crazy, inexcusable, maybe.

The point is that there is a lot of things intermixed in the art world that can make it appear fraudulent, and some of these things are in fact fraudulent. Of course, much of this is more a function of capitalism in general as it is the nature of the art community.

Yet, irrespective of the various deficiencies and faults, all I have to do is look at just one painting by Van Gogh, and I know art is real and valuable, not just in terms of visual appreciation or expression, but also in defining culture itself.

And in photography, effective visual expressions benefits most when certain artistic values are taken into consideration. This is not to be confused with blind submission to rules, such as the Rule of Thirds. Instead, it is more about understanding how visual components speak and interrelate to one another in a photograph. And this process typically drags in artistic considerations whether one likes it or not.

I wanted to add a couple of things and feel free to agree or disagree.

I do believe that it takes some time to establish the importance of work. A lot of what we or the art world dismisses at the time it is shown can be considered important later. Impressionism is one very clear example. It was not considered by the main stream art community at the time to be anything noteworthy.

In todays world galleries don't have time and this is probably is true to some extent and has always been in the gallery/art world that much is hyped by those to make profit over the next latest/greatest for monetary reasons of course. A gallery has to shut it's doors if it's not profitable. I have a good feeling it wasn't Gursky that made that big payday but a collector that bought the painting years earlier with a hope of it appreciating. It did. Some of it deserved. Some of it hyped. Is it worth the money someone spent? Apparently. Will it hold that value or go up? Time will tell.

I also really like a lot of Gursky's work not because "he" created it but because I like it (an insanely detailed 8 ft by 10 ft image. The scale alone is engaging)and I also agree that you might not like something but can still see it being a significant piece.

Some, instead of trying to find out what is legitimate in something they don't understand they just dismiss it as being a fraud. I think that there is a visual language but not built on rules but an ever changing way of seeing. So I do think what is important, is like most artist, take a little of this from our influences and little of that and somehow make it out own. But one thing that is at the core is a real love for art. I can't think of one great artist in any discipline that first didn't have love for it and many other art forms. Many movie directors were influenced by photography, painting and literature to name just a few influences.

Some photographers were influenced by paintings, literature, music and many other mediums. In the 50s when abstract expressionism was the cutting edge photographers like Arron Siskind were hanging out with painters like Franz Kline and going to the village to see Mile Davis and Coltrane. They were also hanging out in the same places that playwrite Sam Shepard (he was at the time) and Jack Kerouac and they were all influencing one another.

Siskind was influenced by Kline and Kline was influenced by Siskind. Rothko was playing with the ideas of psychological response to color(how color made us feel) and Davis, Coltrane and other musicians were playing with idea of sound and color. So this period of time was not just about one art form being part of the overall art movement but it encompassed literature, painting, photography, music, film and many other types of expression.

My advice is always if you hate or don't understand why, look for some answers. Art can be something that can just be enjoyed but it can also ask questions, show you something in a new light or not, educate, change the course of history, shock, inspire, document, influence or be just what it is.

And yes, I agree, while I’ve conceded to the fact that art can fall to hype and pretense, allegations of fraud can also be unjustly excessive. That is, it is sometimes anti-intellectualism more so than healthy skepticism that informs reaction. And the threat of being gratuitously cynical threatens to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

And also a good point regarding who often actually receives the money; it’s not the photographer’s fault! Well, unless you’re Peter Lik.

Anyway, I was actually going to mention impressionism, as its arrival stirred much criticism, but now it is broadly acceptable in relation to what would follow in the early 20th century. To have successfully scuttled impressionism just to placate safer sensibilities would have proved a regressively unfortunate loss.

Abstract art is a particularly favorite target of, let’s say, the traditionalists, who demand the realistic and comprehensible. Such distaste sometimes becomes dogmatic, ignoring that art is expression, and expression itself often involves abstract or intangible concepts. Add on to this is the unconfined reality of aesthetic, which can certainly manifest outside conventional expectations.

Moreover, the very thought of paring down the definition of “real art” to only that which is realistic would be inimical to art itself. And while art’s anarchistic field allows for dubious creations and exploitable commodification, concerted attempts to filter out the fraudulent would do more harm than good.

As you’ve noted, time and study typically serve well enough to weed out the muck, and most artists that have garnered a lasting reputation largely earned it through their work irrespective of any other factors that might have underwrote their success.

We’ve both encountered iconoclasts who take pride in criticizing Adams, Cartier-Bresson, Frank, and so on. And that’s fair, as forcing favor would also be antithetical to the spirit of art. To question and challenge is, after all, a very crucial element of art.

And some criticism is not necessarily dismissive ridicule; that is, I love Adams’ work, for example, but I can understand why some people might find it cold in contrast to Weston’s.

So sure, bust on what one sees as the unfairly weighted influence of John Szarkowski; it fuels healthy debate.

Still, time and again, I’m seldom, if ever, presented with superior alternatives, only reinforcing the notion that time has done a fairly commendable job of recognizing the truly talented and influential…and frankly, so did Szarkowski.

Also, in regards to Siskind, Kline, Coltrane, and others, an excellent illustration on how people from different artistic disciplines intertwine to complement and inspire one another. Actually, a good number great photos from the 50’s and early 60’s involved jazz musicians.

As I got into photography relatively late, I dragged with me a number of influences established years before, including, among other things, 70’s punk, watercolor/ukiyo-e, German expressionism, and surrealism (had a Peter Max book as child).

And finally, as you stated, “My advice is always if you hate or don't understand why, look for some answers. Art can be something that can just be enjoyed but it can also ask questions, show you something in a new light or not, educate, change the course of history, shock, inspire, document, influence or be just what it is.”

sjones wrote in post #18305423Abstract art is a particularly favorite target of, let’s say, the traditionalists, who demand the realistic and comprehensible. Such distaste sometimes becomes dogmatic, ignoring that art is expression, and expression itself often involves abstract or intangible concepts. Add on to this is the unconfined reality of aesthetic, which can certainly manifest outside conventional expectations.

Steve,

When I read this, it reminded me of the questions I hear most when perusing an art gallery, "What is it?" "I don't know what it's supposed to be - do you know what it is?"

Back in December I was at a gallery in Montana, enjoying an abstract ceramic clay sculpture, when a woman behind asked me these very questions. I wasn't sure if the questions were genuine, or if she asked them as an underhanded way of expressing distaste for not only the piece itself, but for the entire abstract genre.

Nonetheless, I decided to humor her by giving as honest an answer as I knew how to give. So I replied, with something like this:

"It embraces balance, yet shuns symmetry - see how each side is so different from the other, yet each has about the same overall mass, and the center of each side's gravity is generally equidistant from the center of the whole?"

"It utilizes both positive and negative space - see how the spaces between the appendages are similar to the appendages themselves - that is, no doubt, intentional.......see how carefully the appendages needed to be positioned in order for the spaces between them to appear that way? When you stand at just this exact spot, all of the spaces between the appendages, on both sides of the piece, appear to be the same size and shape as the appendage below and above them - that does not happen by chance - it was obviously designed to be viewed from this exact angle"

"The graphics on the surface exhibit diversity within a pattern - see how the shapes seem to be distributed at random, with them 'pointing' this way and that, and with varying amounts of space between them? Yet, when you stand back, you can see that their distribution is actually more concentrated at the bottom than it is at the top, with an even gradient in between, so that the overall effect is that more 'weight' is given to the bottom of the piece, which works to visually 'anchor' the sculpture".

"Those graphics are a classic example of an analogous colour scheme. Contrast is accomplished through varying shades and tones, rather than by vividly complementary colours. This results in a much subtler look, which is fitting for a sculptural piece in which the form and substance are to be the vessel which conveys the aesthetic."

As far as what it is? To me, it is balance. It is the interplay of positive and negative space. It is a cleverly designed array of analogous colours. It is form and texture. That is quite a lot for something to be - I do not need it to be anything else........do you?"

I think she saw the light, as she engaged in some further conversation about the sculpture, and continued to spend time looking at it, as well as at the other similar pieces on display there.

I guess the point that I wanted to make was that lines and shapes and space and textures and colours are worthy subjects in themselves, and abstract art can rest wholly upon these subjects if it wants to - it need not attempt to depict "things" that we are familiar with and easily recognize.

.

"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one."They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one."Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

Just think, Tom, with your descriptive and clear explanation, you likely changed the way a person sees the world. Art, at least great art, is not easily created, but enjoying it, or at least getting a better idea of “where or how to look”, doesn’t have to be such a mystery.

Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

Latest registered member is Bill_NY839 guests, 401 members onlineSimultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.